I followed it up before the war. Its a sexy story that folks like Tom B. keep re-cycling, but it all leads back to two connected INC sponsored defectors. Its typical conspiracy-theory stuff. Find a story that looks good on the outside, but is unsubstantiated/unsubstantiatable and recycle it every few months when the last round of refutations and rebuttals are forgotten.

The actual explanation, confirmed by diparate sources in both US and Brit intel is that the only paramilitary training done at salman pak was in the mid 80's, assisted by Britain and America, who were at the time allies. The 'jet' was used to train hostage response teams.

One of the defectors, khoboda I think, is a pretty shady character as well. Not as nasty as the Hamzda INC guy who had Cheney convinced that there were huge caverns underneath Baghdad with Nuke weapon assembly factories, and not even quite as shady as INC commander Challaby himself (who is considered a con man and wirte-fraud artist in about 3 different countries in the gulf area)

Furthermore, no traces of the WMD that were supposedly being used to train terrorists can be found to this day. No documentation was found at Salman Pak to affirm the charges, Nor were any 'terrorist training' facilites found. Nor, of course, were there any al-qaeda folks captured there.

Tom will now turn around and claim that all my research comes from a single story pubnlished in the washington times- which it doesn't. He will claim this because that washington post story that reached mostly the same conclusiuons I did with my research employs 'un-named sources', which he will use to cast doubt on its findings.

Its a stupid game thats I have played here before, and no longer play at all. Nearly everything I have said has turned out true. Nearly all my predictions based on my research have borne out. My sources and studies have been correct. The Right Wing Circle Jerk here and elsewhere has been playing a year-long game of 'revise, restate and deny', where up can be down and left really means right.

The fact is there were no WMD, there certainly were no terrorists. Kay is playing his role- stepping down and then impugning and maligning the very intelligence services that Rumsfeld undermined and ignored with his use on pentegon resources, INC contacts and 'think tank' contractors. Bush will then defend the CIA and Intelligence services- looking like the 'bigger person' in the whole fray.

What can't be pinned on the CIA will be pinned on those 'wiley' Iraqi scientists (who were living in prison camps, with their families under threat of death from Saddam if they made one mistake) who supposedly made-up everything the CIA diddn't 'mess up' on. It is of course an unprovable, unverifyable claim that will stand as yet another conspiracy-theory-esqu strand-in for reason and accountability.

But, of course, this war was never about WMD anyway...

I love the smell of dishonesty and hyocrisy... Smells like victory (in November)

Davin L.